A question one is necessarily confronted with when trying to compare player's careers.

My view is that successes at GS tournaments account for at least 80 percent of a player's long-term standing. Davis Cup successes matter a little but far less. As do successes at the end-year Masters, or at tournamets of the ATP Masters series (who ever counts how many ATP tournaments Sampras won? It's the 14 slams that matter). Also Olympics add a little, but not terribly much too (Steffi Graf isn't famous for her Olympics gold medal).

Dissenting views?

TankingTheSet

08-04-2008, 07:50 PM

Generally the less clued up the person is about tennis the more emphasis is placed on Grand Slams results. 95% of the world population that has seen a tennis match on TV believes there are no other tournaments other than Grand Slams.

RagingLamb

08-04-2008, 07:59 PM

Performance at slams as a predictive factor for someone's long term career makes sense.

But I don't think the slams in are themselves equal in this sense, because some slams have produced more 1 slam wonders than others.

Purple Rainbow

08-04-2008, 08:00 PM

(who ever counts how many ATP tournaments Sampras won?

64 :shrug:

Jelena

08-04-2008, 08:02 PM

A question one is necessarily confronted with when trying to compare player's careers.

My view is that successes at GS tournaments account for at least 80 percent of a player's long-term standing. Davis Cup successes matter a little but far less. As do successes at the end-year Masters, or at tournamets of the ATP Masters series (who ever counts how many ATP tournaments Sampras won? It's the 14 slams that matter). Also Olympics add a little, but not terribly much too (Steffi Graf isn't famous for her Olympics gold medal).

Dissenting views?
Steffi Graf IS famous for her Olympic gold medal, as she is known to have won the GOLDEN slam, which was only possible by winning the gold medal.

Henry Kaspar

08-05-2008, 02:42 AM

Steffi Graf IS famous for her Olympic gold medal, as she is known to have won the GOLDEN slam, which was only possible by winning the gold medal.

Maybe as a little icing on the cake, but the cake are her 22 GS titles. With the exception of Graf and Agassi, I for my part couldn't name any Olympic tennis gold medal winners without googling -- and these two only because they made for a "golden' (career) slam. By contrast, I probably could tell you correctly most Wimbledon winners of the open era.

fast_clay

08-05-2008, 03:20 AM

i think the olympics matter a bit... but... i think only if u have a gs under you belt or even further, have won one that year... massu was just... bullsh!t... wtf...?! :lol:

olympic gold defines mecir's career perhaps... and the golden slam by graf is simply historical...

the atp finals... or wct finals... have had some all time great battles.... highlighted best perhaps by becker vs sampras in the 90's... it carries some weight no doubt...

i agree... slams are where you'd look for greatness in 75-95% of cases depending on which country u live in or come from...

lendl once said of the davis cup: 'no one cares about the davis cup unless ur the team in the final or australia...' :lol: fukn pr!ck... :lol:

but... davis cup has some pretty big significance these days now the its the only chance at legacy for some 1 slam wonders... :lol:

davis cup i would say is bigger than it was say 10 years back... but not 30...

all imho of course...

StevoTG

08-05-2008, 08:32 AM

For me personally if we are go in terms of percentages then I'd probably go GS 35%, Masters Series + Cup 35%, DC 20% and tour events 10% although because grass has no proper season I value Queens and Halle and players achievements there more than other tour events.

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 08:35 AM

GS events do carry a higher weight, if they didn't, then there wouldn't be Grand Slams and then all tournaments would be the same.

As for weighting, well it's irrelevant really. I mean Rios won all 3 TMS events on clay, a feat Lendl, Kuerten and Nadal have done, but what happens is they remember the other 3 for winning Slams.

StevoTG

08-05-2008, 08:40 AM

Yeah while I said that I value MS and GS events equal when judging a players career the slams do carry more weight in terms of value.. why?.. because that's just the way it is.

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 08:43 AM

Kafelnikov winning 2 GS titles and no TMS events, well I know what's of higher value and it's not an issue he never won one, but it counts against that Rios only #1 never to win a GS.

CmonAussie

08-05-2008, 03:29 PM

...
...
obviously winning a Slam is the ultimate achievement for a tennis player~~ something they all strive for & a crowning moment!! *i`m sure none of the players dream of winning Cincinati or Hamburg<> at the end of the day they all hope that somehow they may taste Slam success!

#Pat Rafter only won 11 singles titles but 2 of them were Slams, & he came so close to winning another 3 [Wimby 00-01 & AO 01]. Marcelo Rios won 18 titles but no Slams. Also Rios had a longer run @ #1, won more Masters Series, was more talented & won more prizemoney than Rafter. However, who do you think will go down as the greater player... obviously Rafter is respected more!

#Gaston Gaudio & Mark Philippousis are more difficult to split: Gaudio won a Slam, but Philippoussis reached 2 Slam finals & helped AUS win 2 Davis Cup finals. also the `Scud` had a more spectacular game & infamous play boy/ bad boy image. Probably Philippoussis will be remembered more than Gaudio~~ who seemed to epitomise the harsh term `one slam wonder`!

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 03:46 PM

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned years as year end #1 yet because I think that would be my second most important factor behind Grand Slam success. Let's say that Federer is not able to get year end #1 again but does pick up 2 more Slams. I would rank Sampras over him because he was year end #1 six years while Fed was only year end #1 for four years. It's the same reason I rank Edberg higher than Becker (2 years as year end #1 vs. 0).

CmonAussie

08-05-2008, 03:56 PM

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned years as year end #1 yet because I think that would be my second most important factor behind Grand Slam success. Let's say that Federer is not able to get year end #1 again but does pick up 2 more Slams. I would rank Sampras over him because he was year end #1 six years while Fed was only year end #1 for four years. It's the same reason I rank Edberg higher than Becker (2 years as year end #1 vs. 0).

*I disagree:devil:
...
Edberg & Becker both won 6 slams but Becker won quite a few more titles overall, plus he was the youngest ever Wimbledon champion, & had the adv over Edberg in H2H;)

Year end #1 is very overrated imo, it's a nice stat to have but it's basically the same thing as being #1 in the ranking at any other point in the year, the rankings consist of the same set of tournaments with the one difference being that for year end the tournaments are within the same calender year and during the rest of the year is the past 52 weeks but not all tournaments are in the same calender year. I think that total weeks spent at #1 has more significance that number of year end #1's

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 03:59 PM

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned years as year end #1 yet because I think that would be my second most important factor behind Grand Slam success. Let's say that Federer is not able to get year end #1 again but does pick up 2 more Slams. I would rank Sampras over him because he was year end #1 six years while Fed was only year end #1 for four years. It's the same reason I rank Edberg higher than Becker (2 years as year end #1 vs. 0).

What's the relevance of this? why should a guy ending the year N.1 because he reached the top in November only to lose it next February be greater than another one who was N.1 from previous January till that November? :rolleyes:

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:02 PM

I admit that it is a very close call. Becker won 49 titles; Edberg won 42. Becker was the youngest to win Wimbledon, but Edberg was 2-1 against him at Wimbledon. Becker had the H2H advantage, but Edberg was 3-1 against him at GS events. Becker and Edbarg each won 6 Slams at Wimby/AO/USO, but only Edberg also made the FO finals (after beating Becker in the SF). Becker had more longevity, but, as I noted Edberg had the 2 years as year end #1 while Becker had 0.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:08 PM

Year end #1 is very overrated imo, it's a nice stat to have but it's basically the same thing as being #1 in the ranking at any other point in the year, the rankings consist of the same set of tournaments with the one difference being that for year end the tournaments are within the same calender year and during the rest of the year is the past 52 weeks but not all tournaments are in the same calender year. I think that total weeks spent at #1 has more significance that number of year end #1's

I think it's the same reason that a calendar year Grand Slam is more significant than a Serena Slam: Saying you were the best tennis player (either overall or at all 4 of the Slams) for an individual tennis season is more impressive than saying you were the best for, let's say, the 2nd half of 2007 and the 1st half of 2008. That said, I think that weeks spent at #1 is also a very good criterion and that some consideration of the #1 ranking is the 2nd most important factor behind Slam success, even if we disagree over how it should be calculated.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:11 PM

What's the relevance of this? why should a guy ending the year N.1 because he reached the top in November only to lose it next February be greater than another one who was N.1 from previous January till that November? :rolleyes:

Let's say the years in question are 2007 and 2008. Player A was the best player in the world during 2007. Player B was not the best player in the world during either year. But his results were the best from February of 2007 through February of 2008. I see a significant difference between the 2. That said, if you wanted to replace years as year end #1 with weeks at #1, I wouldn't have a hughe objection. And maybe it's best to compromise, with weeks at #1 being the criterion, and a player getting some kind of bonus for being year end #1.

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 04:14 PM

Year end #1 is totally overrated. The number of weeks at #1 is more accurate.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:14 PM

Also, I will note that while this is an interesting theoretical disucssion, is there a real world case where it has any significance? In other words, is there a player who was year end #1 for more years than another player, and yet the second player logged more weeks at #1? I know that in the Edberg/Becker situation, Edberg was #1 for 72 weeks while Becker was only #1 for 12 weeks.

EDIT: I see that Lendl was #1 for a few more weeks than Connors, even though Connors had one more year as year end #1.

EDIT #2: I also see that Agassi was only year end #1 for one year but had more weeks as #1 than Edberg or Hewitt, who were #1 for 2 years.

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 04:37 PM

Player A was the best player in the world during 2007. Player B was not the best player in the world during either year. But his results were the best from February of 2007 through February of 2008.

I fail to grasp how those two circumstances could possibly concur.

That said, if you wanted to replace years as year end #1 with weeks at #1, I wouldn't have a hughe objection.

Ah but that's something entirely different. Number of weeks as N.1 could have some kind of statistical value. In fact being N.1 at the end of the year is a particular case of being N.1 for 52 weeks, I fail to see why that particular set of 52 weeks would be of more value than any other. At the end number of weeks as N.1 will reflect real victories in tourneys, which is what matters when assessing greatness

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:44 PM

I fail to grasp how those two circumstances could possibly concur.

In 2007, Player A wins the AO and reaches the QF of the FO, the SF of Wimby, and wins the USO. It's pretty easy to see why he would finish year end #1. In 2008, however, he is upset in the second round of the AO and loses the #1 ranking.

In 2007, Player B loses in the 4th round at the AO, reaches the SF of the FO, the F of Wimby, and the F of the USO. So, he's year end #2. Then, he wins the AO in 2008 and takes over #1. But, he slumps the rest of the year and doesn't finish year end #1.

In my mind, even if Player B was #1 for a few more weeks than Player A and 2007-2008 were the only times that either player was #1, Player A would have the better "#1 player profile." To me, it's the same as Graf's 1988 Grand Slam being better than Serena's 2002-2003 Serena Slam.

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 04:51 PM

In 2007, Player A wins the AO and reaches the QF of the FO, the SF of Wimby, and wins the USO. It's pretty easy to see why he would finish year end #1. In 2008, however, he is upset in the second round of the AO and loses the #1 ranking.

In 2007, Player B loses in the 4th round at the AO, reaches the SF of the FO, the F of Wimby, and the F of the USO. So, he's year end #2. Then, he wins the AO in 2008 and takes over #1. But, he slumps the rest of the year and doesn't finish year end #1.

How can that possibly be described as "player B results were the best from Feb 2007 through Feb 2008"?

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 04:52 PM

End of year #1 was used as a tool by Wertheim to push Sampras's case as the greatest of all time.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:54 PM

End of year #1 was used as a tool by Wertheim to push Sampras's case as the greatest of all time.

So, is your problem with using years as year end #1 as a criterion or anything related to the #1 ranking? Because, obviously Sampras also logged the most weeks as #1.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 04:58 PM

How can that possibly be described as "player B results were the best from Feb 2007 through Feb 2008"?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. In this scenario, from February 2007 through February 2008, Player B's GS results were SF, F, F, W. Over the same period, Player A's GS results were QF, SF, W, 2R. Assuming that Player C won the FO in 2007, and Player D won Wimby in 2007, there's a very good shot that Player B would have the best results from Feb 2007 through Feb 2008.

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 04:59 PM

So, is your problem with using years as year end #1 as a criterion or anything related to the #1 ranking?

In my case the former. I place no value whatsoever in that circumstance (it isn't even a stat, the number of consecutive weeks is)

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 04:59 PM

So, is your problem with using years as year end #1 as a criterion or anything related to the #1 ranking? Because, obviously Sampras also logged the most weeks as #1.

No, I have made my point already. Lendl had 270 weeks at number 1 and Sampras has had more weeks, in other words more weeks at number 1 is a more relevant stat, not the end of the year. Jolan has already pointed it out in enough detail.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 05:01 PM

No, I have made my point already. Lendl had 270 weeks at number 1 and Sampras has had more weeks, in other words more weeks at number 1 is a more relevant stat, not the end of the year. Jolan has already pointed it out in enough detail.

So, do you also believe that the Serena Slam is equivalent to the calendar year Slam?

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 05:06 PM

So, do you also believe that the Serena Slam is equivalent to the calendar year Slam?

In my opinion it is.

Net Cord

08-05-2008, 05:08 PM

Fair enough. So, let's say that weeks at #1 is the criterion. Would you consider it the second most important criterion behind Slam success, or would you rate something like Masters Series victories higher?

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 05:11 PM

Masters victories are not higher than weeks at #1.

Rios compared to Kafelnikov and Rafter. I know what I'd rather.

JolánGagó

08-05-2008, 05:15 PM

Fair enough. So, let's say that weeks at #1 is the criterion. Would you consider it the second most important criterion behind Slam success, or would you rate something like Masters Series victories higher?

I'd give it some value when assesing greatness, yes. Exactly what value is difficult to say. More than one MS tittle in the same period? probably yes. More than 3 MS titles in the same period? no way.

See, being N.1 for a certain number of weeks is an effect of your victories in that period, no way the effect should be more valuable than the cause.

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 05:17 PM

MS events can be used as a TB when nearly everything else is equal between certain players.

Slam success and weeks at #1 in that order.

Tennisman82

08-05-2008, 05:22 PM

A question one is necessarily confronted with when trying to compare player's careers.

My view is that successes at GS tournaments account for at least 80 percent of a player's long-term standing. Davis Cup successes matter a little but far less. As do successes at the end-year Masters, or at tournamets of the ATP Masters series (who ever counts how many ATP tournaments Sampras won? It's the 14 slams that matter). Also Olympics add a little, but not terribly much too (Steffi Graf isn't famous for her Olympics gold medal).

Dissenting views?

I'd agree. I'd even say winning slams accounts for 90% of a player's long-term standing. Things like time at number 1, winning the Davis Cup & TMS tournaments do count but in the grand scheme of things count only for very little.

The stakes are simply much higher in slams, they are the be-all and end-all in determining a player’s legacy. There are many players who play much better in non-slam situations as the pressure is minimal (Ljubicic is a perfect example) but what separates a great player from an ordinary one is success at the slams. It may be more challenging to, say, win all three claycourt TMS tournaments leading up to Roland Garros but that doesn’t make the feat more prestigious than winning the FO.

Thanks,
Tennisman82.

Henry Kaspar

08-05-2008, 06:57 PM

Year end #1 is totally overrated. The number of weeks at #1 is more accurate.

Not even sure this matters that much. The question is against what competition one is #1. When Wilander, Becker, Edberg clinmbed to the top, they had each other as competitors plus the grand Ivan Lendl - one of the most dominant players ever. Two slams over the past 12 months were absolutely required to get the top spot. While Juan Carlos Ferrero, for example, made it to #1 in the transitional phase from the Sampras/Agassi era to the Federer era. Make no mistake, Ferrero is a fine player, but in the late 80s he arguably couldn't have made the top 3.

Henry Kaspar

08-05-2008, 07:11 PM

My five cents as who ranks higher, Becker or Edberg"

Pro Becker:
-- 25:10 over Edberg in direct competition.
-- Back-to-back wins at Wimbledon and the US Open in 1989. Edberg never did anything like this.
-- Longer career -- both broke through in 1985, but in 1996 only Becker was still able to win slams.

Pro Edberg:
-- slightly better overall grand slam record (both have 6 titles, but Edberg has 5 lost finals to Becker's 4, etc.)
-- Grand Slam finals on all 3 surface types (Becker's best reult as RG was semifinals, twice)
-- More consistency at the top level that resulted, among other things, in a longer period at #1. From 1985 to 1993 Edberg was continously in the top 5. Becker's career was more yo-yo -- a first good phase 1985/85, a great phase 1989-91, and another fine phase 1995/96.

Overall, these two are very close to one another -- I have Becker at #11 i my open era rankings, Edberg at #12, but I'd be fine if someone has them the other way.

Action Jackson

08-05-2008, 08:33 PM

Not even sure this matters that much. The question is against what competition one is #1. When Wilander, Becker, Edberg clinmbed to the top, they had each other as competitors plus the grand Ivan Lendl - one of the most dominant players ever. Two slams over the past 12 months were absolutely required to get the top spot. While Juan Carlos Ferrero, for example, made it to #1 in the transitional phase from the Sampras/Agassi era to the Federer era. Make no mistake, Ferrero is a fine player, but in the late 80s he arguably couldn't have made the top 3.

Weeks at #1 more accurate than the end of year one, they had to change the system and it works well enough.

I didn't start watching tennis when Nadal started winning tournaments. I'm aware of what happened then, it actually highlighted Lendl was able to be that consistent when he had a very high calibre of top opponents, well Wilander didn't give a fuck apart from the Slams.

At the same time the question of this thread. GS events of course are going to be rated higher, but any numerical figure to try and measure it, is only clouded by subjectivity.

Every player that has reached #1 for 1 minute or 360 weeks has deserved it.

Henry Kaspar

08-05-2008, 08:56 PM

Weeks at #1 more accurate than the end of year one, they had to change the system and it works well enough.

I didn't start watching tennis when Nadal started winning tournaments. I'm aware of what happened then, it actually highlighted Lendl was able to be that consistent when he had a very high calibre of top opponents, well Wilander didn't give a fuck apart from the Slams.

At the same time the question of this thread. GS events of course are going to be rated higher, but any numerical figure to try and measure it, is only clouded by subjectivity.

Every player that has reached #1 for 1 minute or 360 weeks has deserved it.

Dummy question: has the system by which the ATP assigns points to players changed in a significant way in the past 20-25 years? If not, it would be interesting to compare Rios' or Muster's or Ferrero's points score at #1 with Wilander's/Becker's/Edberg's.

Merton

08-05-2008, 11:09 PM

I think it's the same reason that a calendar year Grand Slam is more significant than a Serena Slam: Saying you were the best tennis player (either overall or at all 4 of the Slams) for an individual tennis season is more impressive than saying you were the best for, let's say, the 2nd half of 2007 and the 1st half of 2008. That said, I think that weeks spent at #1 is also a very good criterion and that some consideration of the #1 ranking is the 2nd most important factor behind Slam success, even if we disagree over how it should be calculated.

Obviously any yealry period is equivalent to any other yearly period. That is, if we were pagans celebrating the year change on March 22 instead of December 31 would the ranking at the week of March 31 be more important than the ranking at the week of December 31?

As for the calendar slam, it is important as part of it to win RG and Wimbledon on the same year. That is, winning RG, Wimbledon, US Open and AO is equivalent with a calendar slam but winning Wimbledon, US Open, AO and RG but failing to defend at Wimbledon is slightly less significant.

Let's say the years in question are 2007 and 2008. Player A was the best player in the world during 2007. Player B was not the best player in the world during either year. But his results were the best from February of 2007 through February of 2008. I see a significant difference between the 2. That said, if you wanted to replace years as year end #1 with weeks at #1, I wouldn't have a hughe objection. And maybe it's best to compromise, with weeks at #1 being the criterion, and a player getting some kind of bonus for being year end #1.

Your example clearly works in favour of the # of weeks criterion, in this case player A has to have more weeks as #1 than player B.

Also, I will note that while this is an interesting theoretical disucssion, is there a real world case where it has any significance? In other words, is there a player who was year end #1 for more years than another player, and yet the second player logged more weeks at #1? I know that in the Edberg/Becker situation, Edberg was #1 for 72 weeks while Becker was only #1 for 12 weeks.

EDIT: I see that Lendl was #1 for a few more weeks than Connors, even though Connors had one more year as year end #1.

EDIT #2: I also see that Agassi was only year end #1 for one year but had more weeks as #1 than Edberg or Hewitt, who were #1 for 2 years.

Those are important examples, as Connors also benefited from the system counting results from the previous two years during the 70s. That is, Villas was the better player in 77 and Borg in 78, yet Connors was the #1 ranked player in these years. As for Agassi, he had the best season for his career from US Open 94 until US Open 95. He did not end up as #1 in either year but if we only followed year end #1 we would lose that fact. For example, during this period Agassi won 2 slams and went undefeated during the summer of 95, performing better than in 99 when he ended up as year end #1.

So, is your problem with using years as year end #1 as a criterion or anything related to the #1 ranking? Because, obviously Sampras also logged the most weeks as #1.

It is interesting that Sampras surpassed the total # of weeks as #1 record of Lendl when he had some weeks as #1 in 99 and 2000.

Merton

08-05-2008, 11:15 PM

End of year #1 was used as a tool by Wertheim to push Sampras's case as the greatest of all time.

Clearly so, sidestepping the fact that Borg was way better on his worst surface (hard courts) than Sampras on his (clay). Of course the total # of weeks as #1 between the two captures the greater longevity of Sampras ans the fact that Borg walked away from the game, but at the end it is a judgement call which of th two factors is more important while Wortless presented it as a clear case.

No doubt that Worthless will use the same argument if applicable when comparing Federer and Sampras in the future. Just hoping Roger can log on an additional 50 weeks as #1, then it will be funny to watch the mental gynmastics.

fast_clay

08-05-2008, 11:22 PM

year end #1 = minor, minor stat... in importance for me it goes:
a) actually reaching #1 (time of year irrelevant)
b) number of weeks at #1

actually reaching number #1 for even just one week is above any number of Masters Series sheilds IMO...

year end stat is nice to glance at everynow and again... but, it is merely a light and fluffy stat that is a snapshot of a time that could be at any other week in the 52...

Action Jackson

08-06-2008, 07:11 AM

Dummy question: has the system by which the ATP assigns points to players changed in a significant way in the past 20-25 years? If not, it would be interesting to compare Rios' or Muster's or Ferrero's points score at #1 with Wilander's/Becker's/Edberg's.

It's not hard to find the details of the points score when it comes to the number 1 ranking. Look at all the players that have done it, then go to Steve G on the ranking section and it goes all the way back to 1974 and it's there.

Well if Vilas won 17 events in 1977 and Borg in 78 weren't ranked #1 and Merton has pointed the example out that it has been changed.

Muster when he got to #1 and everyone was pissing on it, they fail to realise he'd never have got there if he hadn't won Essen (TMS) on a proper fast surface defeating Sampras in the process, he'd never have got there.

The points score isn't really relevant, because of the very subjective nature it comes down to and doesn't take into account how the trends and the game itself has changed.

Edberg would be in front of Becker for me, because their records were pretty much equal, but Edberg performed better on their worst surface in the major events, he made the RG final and won TMS events on clay, something Becker didn't.

Henry Kaspar

08-06-2008, 09:33 PM

It's not hard to find the details of the points score when it comes to the number 1 ranking. Look at all the players that have done it, then go to Steve G on the ranking section and it goes all the way back to 1974 and it's there.

Thanks. The rankings go back only to the mid-90s (with points score), hence no comparison is possible with the Lendl/Wilander/Becker/Edberg period. However, the stats shows that Kuerten was #1 with a peak score of about 4650, Muster of 4450 points, Ferrero, Safin were #1 with 4300 points, Rios with about 3700, and Moya with about 3500 (!).

Now compare this with the current ATP ranking: Federer 6680, Nadal 6455, Djokovic 5390. Hence, if as you say the method of computing the ATP points score has not changed materialy, none of these players would be in the top 3 today, not even with their best score. They got to #1 nonetheless because they peaked when there were no dominant players around.